The deal they were discussing, this person said, resembled the bill that Mr. Boehner won approval for in the House on Friday more than it did the one that Mr. Reid had proposed.

It would immediately raise the debt ceiling by about $1 trillion, accompanied by a similar range of spending cuts, and set up a new bipartisan committee that would work to find deeper cuts in exchange for a second debt limit increase that would extend through the 2012 election.

A failure of the new committee to win enactment of its proposal could then set off automatic spending cuts across the board, including to entitlement programs. Other ideas were swirling around the Capitol as lawmakers searched for a way to avoid default. One of Mr. Reid’s top lieutenants said he saw at least a glimmer of hope.

$2.8 trillion deal. It would raise the debt ceiling by that amount through 2012 and make equal spending cuts.

$1 trillion in cuts would be agreed now.

Special committee appointed by Congress would recommend a second installment of savings of about $1.8 trillion.

If Congress cannot agree on how to implement the cuts recommended by the committee, automatic cuts would be triggered, including reductions in military spending and cost savings to the Medicare health care program for the elderly. Benefit cuts would not be triggered though.

No cuts in Social Security.

It was unclear whether tax increases could contribute to the additional budget savings under the trigger.

These are supposedly ten-year numbers. With a $2.8 trillion increase in the debt ceiling, and spending cuts of $2.8 trillion over ten years, even without the experts giving us a more detailed analysis it becomes very obvious: we’ll be hitting the raised debt ceiling again in just a few years.

The $1 trillion in spending cuts gets made quickly. Right. Well, if that happens, we’re looking at a $3.8 trillion cushion in the debt ceiling; that’s going to take what, three years to reach?

It was only last spring that the Congress wrestled mightily with budget cuts, after the completely Democrat-controlled eleventy-first Congress failed to do its job and pass an overall budget or most of the annual appropriations bills required to fund government operations. $100 billion in cuts became $61 billion in cuts to the severe $38 billion in cuts which actually meant just $352 million in actual deficit reduction. If after all of that effort, and a looming government shutdown — the government actually did run out of money for about six hours — even the Republicans by themselves could propose only $61 billion in cuts, before they started negotiating with the Democrats, how can anybody stand there, and say that the Congress will cut $1 trillion, “now,” from government spending, with a straight face?

Let me be very clear about this: if the President or the leaders of the Congress stand up there and tell you that, as msn.com, quoting Reuters, put it, “$1 trillion in cuts would be agreed now,” unless those cuts are already agreed to and are part of this purported deal, they are lying to you!

In agreeing to an increase in the debt ceiling, the Republicans have just thrown away their last bit of leverage. They have surrendered to the traditional establishment logic that not increasing the debt ceiling would be bad, bad, bad! and that we simply must borrow and spend more money. They have also bowed to the conventional wisdom that not raising the debt ceiling would hurt the GOP politically, even though it seems to be hurting President Obama.

Rather, the Republican leadership — assuming that the reports are accurate — has decided that they will avoid negative publicity (not that it will work), and stake their bets on the 2012 elections winning Republican control of the Senate and the White House. And maybe that will work, because President Obama is unpopular with a majority right now, his job performance ratings are continuing to decline, and the Democrats have to defend 26 seats in the Senate next year, compared to only ten for the GOP.

But it also risks losing grassroots support from the TEA Party, from the very people who rose up and gave the Republicans the House majority and six additional Senate seats in the 2010 elections. They won’t vote for the Democrats, but they might just get so thoroughly disgusted that they stay at home next election day.

So, in answer to the title question, if the initial reports are true, and the framework of the supposed deal is as reported, it was Speaker of the House John Boehner and the Republican leadership who blinked.
______________________________________Cross posted on Common Sense Political Thought

This graphical mis-truth has another major flaw. While showing 8 years of “domestic and defense spending” for President Bush, the White House propaganda bar shows no spending whatsoever for the Obama administration.

Lastly, the farm bill was passed in 2008 by a Democrat congress over George Bush’s VETO. That spending should fall on Pelosi and Reid, not Bush. The farm bill was $300 billion so almost that entire part of the chart does not belong to Bush.

Integrity is a thing of the past as far as the Democrat leadership is concerned. They don’t need no stinkin’ integrity!

Hobbits are not adventure-seekers. They do not have their heads in the clouds. Hobbits do not pine for excitement or glory or any other nonsense. Hobbits prefer to stay in their community, working the ground and going about their business living in peace.

Hobbits are not powerful warriors like the dwarves. Hobbits are not ageless magical woodland folk like the elves. Hobbits do not have kingdoms and powerful armies like the humans. Hobbits do not have great magic like the wizards. Hobbits are not famous or especially superior at anything, actually.

But hobbits like Frodo, Samwise, Merry, Pippin are willing to defy the odds and stoicly trudge to what may well be their doom for the greater good. They are in very much over their heads in every measure, being far inferior in practically every measure to their non-hobbit companions.

And that’s why Hobbits and the TEA Party are so similar.

The TEA Party folk are not wealthy or famous or powerful or overly political. The TEA Party folk do not have an overwhelming military or any true structure. They would rather stay in their communities and go about their lives in peace.

And that’s why Liberals and the Republican Ruling Class have chosen to derisively call TEA Party folk Hobbits.

Hobbits are not the best at anything. They are not elite. In fact they are among the least of the people. The same goes for the TEA Party to a great extent. All the way down the line, the Hobbits and the TEA Party align remarkably well. Even to the actions, courage, and results. Frodo, Samwise, Merry, Pippen, just as Bilbo before them, leave their comfort zones and deny themselves, striking out into dangerous and unfamiliar territory specifically for the benefit of the world around them.

And in the end, the Hobbits are the rescuers of the “elite” and the rescuers of the world. So, yeah, we accept the term “Hobbits” that the Liberals and RCRs foolishly meant as derisive. We wear that moniker as a badge of honor. And we hope to live up to the Selfless Valor of the Hobbit.

days since the Democrats in Congress tried to pass a Budget. That’s 2 years plus an additional 90 days. The American people (yes, Harry Reid, they are indeed Americans) voted the Republican Party into majority in the House of Representatives in the November 2010 elections. After the Republicans were seated in January, they promptly went to work and passed a Budget in order to follow the Law since the Democrats before them were unwilling to obey the Law that requires a Budget. Then the Democrat Senator Harry Reid sat on his hands, declaring he is not even interested in doing a Budget, despite the Law requiring it.

The debt ceiling is being hit. The Republican House, after passing the Budget that the Senate is still sitting on, passed the Cut, Cap and Balance + Balanced Budget Amendment debt ceiling raiser. Harry Reid’s Democrat Senate is sitting on it, refusing to even have a vote.

The Republican House passed a revised “compromise” (how do you compromise when you’re the only position at hand?) John Boehner debt ceiling raising bill since the Harry Reid Democrat Senate refused to act on CCB+BBA. Democrat Harry Reid promptly sat on the Boehner Bill (after all 51 Democrats and 2 Independents who caucus with the Democrats signed a letter declaring the Boehner Bill dead before it even got out of the House).

Socialist Democrat Barack Obama has never once provided any plan to cut spending and raise the debt ceiling, while at the same time demanding Republicans compromise with him.

While Republicans are busily offering plans, Democrats are busily obstructing and flinging poo from the sidelines as they refuse to enter the field of battle.

Back to those 820 days since the Democrats in Congress bothered to obey the law by passing a Budget: The most recent Continuing Resolution to keep the Federal government funded through the rest of Fiscal Year 2011 will expire in October, meaning we’re going to keep talking about the Budget in September and beyond. The Republican House will pass a FY2012 Budget. The Democrat Senate will sit on it. And a new round of battles over yet another Continuing Resolution to keep the Federal Government funded due to the intransigence of the Democrats in Congress will ensue.

All four Barack Obama years will be years of over 1,000,000,000,000 dollar deficits and only one of the four Obama years will see an actual Budget, that being the 2009 year — despite the Law requiring a Budget.

Yes, it is the Democrats who are fiscally irresponsible. Yes, it is the Democrats who are in violation of the Law. Yes, it is the Democrats who are obstructionist. Yes, it is the Democrats who keep saying “no”: No to obeying the Law requiring a Budget; no to presenting a Budget; no to presenting a deficit reduction plan to raise the debt ceiling; no to compromising with Republicans.

A new Gallup Poll, just released, finds the Democrat’s job approval rating has dropped to 40% in recent days, one point below his previous low from April and a full 10 points below the job approval he enjoyed as recently as June 7.

Gallup notes his job approval has hovered in the mid-40s for most of the last two months.

“However,” the new survey says, “it has stumbled in the past few days, coinciding with intensification of the debt ceiling/budget battle in Washington.”

Let’s note something: the Gallup graph had President Obama’s job approval rating spiking — if calling a 50% approval rating “spiking” is realistic — in May and June.

Well, duhhh! After a decade of trying, American forces finally succeeded in tracking down and killing Osama bin Laden on the first of May; of course the President’s job approval ratings were going to improve then. Our friends on the left tried their best to make the approval spike stick, talking up President Obama and telling us how President Obama succeeded where President Bush had failed.

Unfortunately for them, the Navy Seals won’t get another chance to kill Mr bin Laden, just before the election, and the President’s job approval ratings went to the low-to-mid 40s range that they had been in for a year; the spike was just that, and wasn’t indicative of how people graded our President over the longer term.

The United States suffered through a bad recession in the early 1980s, and President Reagan’s popularity plummeted; the Democrats won big in the 1982 midterm congressional elections. That was hardly surprising: the unemployment rate was 10.8% in November of 1982¹. But by November of 1984, when President Reagan was re-elected, the unemployment rate was 7.2%, a 3.6% drop. More, the unemployment rate began it’s steepest rate of descent starting in July of 1983, and people could see economic trends getting better. Whether the government actually controls the economy or not — and I don’t believe that it does, other than to nibble at the margins — the President gets the credit when things are going good, and the blame when they are going bad.

Additionally, the president has major problems in battleground states, and trails a generic Republican by six points. The trick now is for the GOP to figure out how to get this generic Republican on the ballot.

Yeah, that is an issue, alright, but the notable part that I see is that President Obama and the Democrats are failing to see approval rate increases over the debt ceiling issue, no matter how hard they’ve tried. And it’s really pretty simple: the Democrats are trying to peg political gain not on what they are accomplishing, but on blaming the Republicans.

Come election day of 2012, the voters aren’t going to be nearly as interested in what President Obama can blame on the Republicans as they will be on what he has accomplished himself.
______________________________
¹ – Bureau of Labor Statistics. You may have to adjust the search parameters to get to the referenced dates used in this article.
______________________________Cross-posted on Common Sense Political Thought

Share this:

Like this:

Thanks Barack… Obama’s Record Deficits & Debt Will Likely Cause a Downgrade in the US Credit Rating

and provides this very telling chart:

Note the first year of the George W Bush Presidency, there was an accounting surplus. That was the year of 9-11, when Islamic terrorists did great economic damage to the US. The final 2 years of the GWB Presidency, Democrats held the majority in both Houses of Congress, but the 2007 Budget was written by the 2006 Republican Congress while the 2008 Budget was written by the 2007 Democrat Congress (and later modified by the 2008 Democrat Congress). Also note that it has been over 800 days since the last Budget that came out of the Harry Reid-run US Senate, and Harry Reid (D – NV) has declared he is not interested in putting forth a Budget.

On a related note, if you want the Fiscal Conservative base in your camp, it is a good idea to get a Sarah Palin endorsement. Hot Air commenter “unseen,” who often brings in relevant quotes to the comment sections, does so in spades in this regard.

Public Policy Polling currently has Hutchinson at 56 percent, and Perry at 31 percent.

Read the polling memo here. Says PPP:

That 27% of likely Republican voters who have a dim view of Perry is obviously part of his problem. Those voters support Hutchison 85-8.

But they’re not necessarily the biggest thing that could keep him from nomination for another term. That’s because 47% of those surveyed have a positive opinion of both Hutchison and Perry, but within that group the Senator leads 49-33. When you have higher negatives than your opponent and lose out among your mutual admirers, that’s a recipe for defeat.

Hutchison leads Perry within every demographic group by race, gender, and age.

“Rick Perry is in grave danger of losing in the primary,” said Dean Debnam, President of Public Policy Polling. “It’s partly because he’s worn out his welcome with a certain segment of the Republican electorate, but the even bigger reason is that Kay Bailey Hutchison is just a lot more popular than him. It would be hard for anyone to beat her in an election.”

GHWB was not and is not a Reagan Republican, but he did ride Reagan’s legacy into the White House (and promptly lost it by divorcing himself from Reagan’s fiscal conservatism).
Sarah Palin is a Reagan Republican.
Barbara Bush, blue-blood that she is, said Sarah Palin should stay in Alaska.

While correlation is not necessarily causation, Perry (who was a well-known “Austerity Democrat” in the Texas Legislature during his early years) was trailing Hutchison badly before Palin weighed in. And Perry won that “divisive” Primary and went on to win re-election.

I have created a new website called Texas Tenther and posted a Welcome article explaining Texas Tenther. I fully intend on maintaining both TBD and Texas Tenther. I hope you find both sites enlightening.

By the way, since it’s better to give than to receive, you can now prove you’re better than me on TT by giving.🙂

UPDATE: I have decided to fold Texas Tenther back into Truth Before Dishonor.

Tom Harkin’s deceitful false alternative fallacy: Refusal to raise the debt ceiling means willingness to let the US default on its debts.

The truth: If the US debt ceiling is not raised, a couple hundred billion dollars a month will continue to roll in to the Federal coffers; more than enough to pay the interest on the debt, Social Security checks, military payroll and more. If the country defaults, the Obama Administration would be directly responsible as it would be the Obama Administration which refused to properly prioritize expenditures. The Republicans who refused to raise the debt ceiling would be blameless for a US default.

Tom Harkin’s flat-out lie: The Republican President, Republican House, Republican Senate of the previous 8 years is responsible for most of the debt.

Truth 1: The Democrats held the House of Representatives for the final 2 of George W Bush’s 8 years while the Democrats held the Senate for the first and last 2 of George W Bush’s 8 years, thus the Republicans only held all three for 4 of George W Bush’s 8 years while the Democrats held both Houses of Congress for the final two and one House of Congress for the first two.

Truth 2: During George W Bush’s 8 years in office, the total debt climbed less than 6 trillion dollars. Since the current debt is over 14 trillion dollars, George W Bush did not preside over “most of the debt”. During the four years the Republicans held both Houses of Congress and the Presidency, the total debt climbed 2.2 trillion dollars. That means the debt climbed faster the four years Democrats held a portion or all of Congress than the four years Republicans held all of Congress.

Truth 3: The deficit has never been as great as it was under the Democrat Obama-Reid-Pelosi Administration. The new Republican House of Representatives passed a Budget that would cut the deficit but the Democrat Reid Senate has refused to pass a Budget for over 800 days, despite federal Law mandating one. And Democrat President Obama sent a “Budget” which was so unserious, so deficit-rich that the Democrat-controlled Senate voted it down 97-0.

The deficit spending more than doubled when the Democrats took over Congress and nearly doubled again as Obama took over the Presidency, so for Tom Harkin (Democrat, Iowa) to make his claims, he had to lie through his teeth. And the only people who will believe his spewage are those who are ignorant of the facts or those who are fanatically invested in his agenda.

Budgets are generally finalized in the calendar year prior to the fiscal year for which they are written, but not always. For example, the Democrat Congress refused to write a Budget for FY2009 until Democrat Obama took his seat as President, and then pumped up the (deficit) volume.

Hey, Tom Harkin. Who is the more “cult fringe,” to use your term? Those who believe your lies or those who have the facts? I’d suggest to you that you learn to speak the Truth before you Dishonor yourself further, but you won’t listen anyway. After all, you have the game of politics to win. To heck with the little people.

Brooks actually has three degrees: political science, economics, and law. As a lawyer, Brooks would have been experienced enough not to make Brewer’s mistake in a cross-examination, which is to ask a question without first knowing the answer. Not only that, but Brewer was being flat-out rude as well as foolish; MSNBC invited Brooks to appear to get his perspective on the issues. If their hosts respond by belittling them (whether it backfires or not), what does that say about MSNBC, its management, and the kind of invitations they make?

Since Brewer made an issue out of having an economics degree before engaging in economics debates, she must have a doctorate in the subject herself, right? Not exactly. According to her Wikipedia entry, Brewer has a baccalaureate in broadcast journalism (magna cum laude). Apparently they didn’t teach interviewing skills at Syracuse, or logic either, as a requisite for the degree.

Contessa Brewer has a four-year degree in broadcast journalism. Not exactly a rigorous science, that. And she wants to antagonize and belittle a politician, calling his education into question on subject matter that she is very poorly educated in. And she sticks her foot in her mouth up to the knee. Of course, it’s quite typical behavior from the radical Leftist MSNBC. Perhaps that’s why they have such dismal viewership numbers.

It seems to me I’ve seen this play before. But the version I’m familiar with has a foreign socialist with a book-putter-backer degree arguing economics with an American businessman with an Ivy League economics degree. With much the same results.

Michelle Malkin gets a ton of hate mail. On occasion, she posts some of it. And of course, she’s helpful enough to post the names and email addresses attached to the hate mail.

Below the fold, you will see racism, misogyny, pure unadulterated hate spewing forth from the Leftist nutjobs. Below the fold, you will see terms that my moderation filter and spam filter will catch if someone tried to use it in my comment section. If you wilt easily, do not venture below the fold.

It would be funny if the “tolerant” Liberals would show up to protest the showing of a movie. It would be funnier if the Gene Siskel Film Center wired the outside for sound and broadcast the audio of the movie so the protesters could hear it.

The dishonorable Polutico author and JournoList member Ben Smith wrote another dishonorable article. Since I don’t link to Polutico if I can avoid it, I’ll link to Hot Air Headlines, which in turn links to Polutico.

… in which she responded — without naming him — to the Tea Party freshman’s support for…

Uhh, Bennie, are you sure you want to play that game? Because immediately after you wrote that, you wrote:

“The gentleman from Florida. who represents thousands of Medicare beneficiaries, as do I, …”

By your own quote, it is very obvious who Debbie Wutzername Schmuck was talking about. Yes, she in fact did name him by making that statement you quoted. You, Bennie, might want to quit playing your dishonorable games. You, Bennie, might want to try integrity for a change.

What’s this all about? Allen West fired off a scathing email to Debbie Wutzername Schmuck where Allen West has her dead to rights.

Look, Debbie, I understand that after I departed the House floor you directed your floor speech comments directly towards me. Let me make myself perfectly clear, you want a personal fight, I am happy to oblige. You are the most vile, unprofessional ,and despicable member of the US House of Representatives. If you have something to say to me, stop being a coward and say it to my face, otherwise, shut the heck up. Focus on your own congressional district!

I am bringing your actions today to our Majority Leader and Majority Whip and from this time forward, understand that I shall defend myself forthright against your heinous characterless behavior……which dates back to the disgusting protest you ordered at my campaign hqs, October 2010 in Deerfield Beach.

You have proven repeatedly that you are not a Lady, therefore, shall not be afforded due respect from me!

Steadfast and Loyal

Congressman Allen B West (R-FL)

One minor correction. She may not be the most vile, unprofessional and despicable member of the House, but she is most definitely one of the most vile, unprofessional and despicable members of the House.

In the Polutico comment thread comes the perfect comment.

Wow. After reading the blurb and the comments I am struck with a truth that needs repeating here. The tactics of the Left never change. First they smear someone in classic passive/agressive style, behind their back, indirectly and with lies that are calculated to enrage the ignorant, the lazy and the leftist bigot. Then when someone calls them out on their slanderous, juvenile behavior, they act passive/agressive again, playing the poor wittow VICTIM (waa, waa), belittling the person, demeaning them, dehumanizing them and in every way. It is an especially childish thing to do. It is a tactic that works well with children and with childish adults. It seems to come naturally to those of the left.

Posted By: Yodan

That’s dead-eye accurate and it nails some very obvious Leftist commenters I know.

Legend has it Art Laffer diagrammed his Laffer Curve on a napkin. Whether this is true or not, I neither know nor care. That’s called indifferent ignorance. It’s also irrelevant. On more than one occasion, a great idea or a smash hit or profound thought or what have you has been created on a napkin, an envelop, a table cloth, the back of a receipt, etc.

And many ideas, thoughts, and suchlike are “oh, duh” moments where the ideas are so obvious it’s a wonder nobody else came up with them or verbalized them so succinctly prior. In my opinion, Art Laffer’s famous Laffer Curve is exactly that: Oh, duh! It’s so simple, it makes absolute sense. To suggest otherwise would be a fool’s errand. If a government has a 100 percent tax, that government will eventually cause the entire economy to halt, creating zero tax dollars out of that 100 percent tax. Likewise, if a government has a zero percent tax, the government will create zero tax dollars. And it’s not a binary system. It’s not on/off. It’s not either/or. It’s greyscale.

As you increase the tax rate from zero, you gain tax revenue. As you decrease the tax rate from 100, you gain tax revenue. It’s so very obvious, it’s a “duh” moment. But that means there is a point somewhere along the lines where there is a maximum revenue stream. Anything greater produces less revenue and anything lower produces less revenue. And that’s the “duh, why didn’t I think of that” moment that is the Laffer Curve.

But the Laffer Curve also works in business decisions. In my business and economics studies, I have seen the principles of the Laffer Curve but I have not seen it distilled down to the Laffer Curve. But it is very applicable. In fact, businesses which don’t account in some way for the Laffer Curve will not long survive.

Businesses are in business to make money. In that regard, they must sell something, be it a commodity or a service or information or whatever else. For a business to sell something, there must be a price set. And that’s where the Laffer Curve plays a primary role. If a business sets too high a price, nobody will buy the product. That means zero income. If a business gives away its product for free, that means zero income. That means, by definition, both ends of the spectrum produce the same result: zero income. And somewhere between both ends of the spectrum produces the desired result: maximum income.

But income is only part of the business equation. Cost of producing the product is the other part. And a major cost is payroll. Businesses want the lowest payroll possible to match the highest product price possible. This is where the Laffer Curve begins to go 3-D. This is where multiple variants come into play. But let’s look at the new variant: Payroll cost.

If a business pays zero for its labor force, there will be no labor force. Even in slave-labor societies, there is still a cost for the labor force: food and shelter. But the other end of the spectrum — too high a cost for the labor force — is 3-D. If the business pays more for its labor force than it receives in selling its product, the business goes below zero on the Laffer Curve. So, zero cost for labor means zero labor and no business; the business ceases to exist. And too high a cost for labor compared to price for product means a business loss and the business ceases to exist. Ultimately, that means there is a desirable labor cost, a salary level which brings the maximum corporate benefit.

Another actor affected by the Laffer Curve is an actor many tend to ignore. Because it is a mostly stealth actor. As such, I consider it in many ways the most dangerous and most destructive actor. That is Regulation. Government regulations on business cost money. The more regulations, the more money they cost. The more invasive the regulation, the more money it costs. Once again, this is the Laffer Curve in 3-D. Regulations affect the cost of producing the product. Those regulations affect the product itself and the labor force and everything else involved in producing the product. The regulations affect the sale of the product, the use of the product after sold, and the business that created the product even long after the product was sold.

If regulations are too numerous or too invasive or too restrictive, they drive the consumer cost of the product so high that nobody buys the product, producing zero income. And the business ceases to exist. And the government loses a source of tax revenue. And people lose their incomes. Domino. If there are no regulations, the products become completely untrustworthy, even to the point of death for some products. And trustworthy businesses will fail just as the untrustworthy businesses fail, just by being associated with the same class of unregulated product. Therefore, there is a “sweet spot” for regulations. Too numerous or too invasive and everyone suffers as a result; too few or not invasive enough and everyone suffers as a result.

The key with the Laffer Curve is to hit the sweet spot, or to come as close to the sweet spot as possible. Actually, the greatest key is to get as close as possible without going over, as in “The Price Is Right”. Going under is easily correctable. Going over is not.

If you pay your employees too little, you will have too few employees and the employees you do have won’t be the quality employees you want or need. Increase the pay level and that problem fixes itself over a short period of time. If you pay your employees so much that you are unprofitable, you cannot easily cut their pay. Cutting employee pay will destroy morale, cause a mass exodus, and possibly do irreparable harm to your business. You will not be able to achieve maximum success. Your maximum is now permanently lower than it would have been had you not been overpaying your employees prior.

If you overcharge for your product for long enough, nobody will buy your product. Even as you lower the price of your product, you will not gain the market share you could have gained had you not been overpriced in the first place. But if you undercharge for your product, increasing the price, while likely costing business in the short-term, will still give you opportunity for maximum profit in the long run.

If you overtax for long enough, the optimum tax level drops even lower. And the economic output potential also drops lower than it would’ve been had you not been overtaxing. Further, the government has already become too large and unweildy, needing even more revenue than it already receives. Lowering the taxes, while greatly beneficial to the people, will starve portions of government. And again, it will not produce as much benefit as it would have if the taxes hadn’t been set too high to begin with. Because the economy had been starved for far too long.

If you over-regulate for any duration, permanent economic damage ensues. Reducing the regulations is too late for maximum benefit.

Now, I’m not being fatalistic. I do not suggest keeping the systems too high merely because lowering them is too late for maximum benefit. Maintaining the systems at too high a level will continue to bring greater harm than reducing the systems. Reducing the systems, while too late for maximum benefit, will still produce greater benefit than keeping the systems at too high a level.

For the businesses and the half of the people who pay taxes, taxes are too high. For the half of the people who pay no taxes, taxes are too low. There are far too many regulations and the regulations are far too invasive. Examining these things based on the Laffer Curve makes it more than obvious.

Taxes and regulations drive up the labor cost to unnaturally high levels. Taxes and regulations drive up the product cost to unnaturally high levels.

Where businesses must deal with the Laffer Curve to stay in business, governments can and do ignore the Laffer Curve in its entirety. Businesses must maintain a labor force. That means paying their labor force enough to keep them and to keep the quality. Businesses must continue to sell their product, that means keeping the product price low enough that it sells.

But governments ignore all that. Democratic governments eventually devolve into feeding emotion and the greedy, lustful nature of people by giving those who do not deserve it money from people who earned it, and by creating enough regulations to allow people to not be responsible for what they do; instead making others responsible for what the irresponsible people do.

Emotionalism, irresponsibility, buying votes. That’s what keeps big-spending government types in office. And that’s what is currently destroying these United States. And that’s why the Liberal Socialists and Ruling Class Republicans need thrown out on their ears.